Hi Mandy,
On 08/13/2016 01:55 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Kim Barrett <kim.barr...@oracle.com> wrote:
full: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/jdk.04/
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~kbarrett/8156500/hotspot.04/
This looks very good.
Have you considered having JVM_WaitForReferencePendingList method to return the
pending list? i.e. make it a blocking version of
getAndClearReferencePendingList rather than two operations.
waitForReferenceProcessing is really wait for pending reference(s) enqueued
(additionally cleaner gets invoked). What do you think to rename this method
to “waitForPendingReferencesEnqueued”?
I think the split is intentional. It's a clever way to avoid an
otherwise inevitable race that could otherwise cause DBB allocating
thread to fail with OOME prematurely.
waitForReferencePendingList() is invoked out of synchronized block so
that it does not prevent the progress of thread(s) invoking
waitForReferenceProcessing(), while getAndClearReferencePendingList is
non-blocking and is invoked inside the synchronized block that also sets
a boolean flag. Code in waitForReferenceProcessing() checks both the
non-emptiness of reference pending list and the boolean flag while
holding the lock.
The following sequence of actions (as used in NIO Bits):
System.gc();
Reference.waitForReferenceProcessing();
...therefore either:
- completes immediately after System.gc() returns without discovering
any pending Reference, returning false; or
- completes after System.gc() discovers at least one pending Reference
and ReferenceHandler thread processes at least one Cleaner, returning
true; or enqueues all pending Reference(s), returning false.
When waitForReferenceProcessing() returns false consecutively even after
a series of exponentially increasing pauses, the DBB allocating
thread(s) can be sure they have exhausted all options to allocate the
direct buffer and must fail with OOME.
I have a feeling that these pauses are now unnecessary. Will try to
check with some experiments...
Regards, Peter
Grammar question:
"there are no more references”
"If there aren't any pending {@link Reference}s"
- This is the case with zero pending reference, shouldn’t it use “is” such that:
"there us no more reference”
"If there isn't any pending {@link Reference}”
Please update the synposis of JDK-8156500 to make it clear what this fix is
(it’s nothing related to JDI). Maybe something like “Move the pending
reference list to VM”
Mandy
